|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Testing Theories of Origins | |||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
The Bible (including Genesis 1—11) is the error-free word of God. Which one? Oh I forgot. The one they follow of course.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The Bible (including Genesis 1—11) is the error-free word of God.
Which one? Do any of them exclude Genesis? And if not, then why would it matter regarding a theory of origins?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Since different ones use different words, then they can not all be the "error-free word of God".
This is not limited to a theory of origins but to anything in which people claim their bible is the "error-free word of God". I am amazed you have any issue with what I posted.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Since different ones use different words, then they can not all be the "error-free word of God". How different do the versions make the wording in Genesis? And how much does it impact the perceived errors?
This is not limited to a theory of origins but to anything in which people claim their bible is the "error-free word of God". The big difference between the canons is the books they include, rather than the translation differences within the books. And those otherthings that don't have to do with origins are pretty irrelevant to this thread.
I am amazed you have any issue with what I posted. What, an unoriginal and unimportant irrelevant quibble that doesn't add to the discussion? I always have issues with those.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
The big difference between the canons is the books they include, rather than the translation differences within the books.
In whose opinion? Yours?
quote: quote: quote: Remember we are discussing a point made by RTB adherents.
quote: You yourself have pointed this out as problem. All three of these cannot be error-free. One can be, or none can be.
And those otherthings that don't have to do with origins are pretty irrelevant to this thread.
The RTB adherents and you have presented this as a topic. Of course it is relevant to the thread. If it was not relevant why did point it out and why would you question it?
What, an unoriginal and unimportant irrelevant quibble that doesn't add to the discussion?
Not at all irrelevant. You yourself have called out the claim that the bible is 'error-free word of God". In order for this to be true there would have to be one bible. There is not one bible. The bible is not one tome, it is a ragtag collection of ancient writings with multiple canon and translations. Whether you feel so or not translation is important. Calling into question RTB's assertion that there is one errror-free version of the bible is very relevant in order to discount their claims.
I always have issues with those.
No you have issues with me. At least be honest.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
All three of these cannot be error-free. One can be, or none can be. Which parts, specifically, are mutually exclusive?
The RTB adherents and you have presented this as a topic. Of course it is relevant to the thread. If it was not relevant why did point it out and why would you question it? Whether or not a Bible canon contains a particular book that is unrelated to origins is irrelevant to a Biblical model on origins.
Not at all irrelevant. You yourself have called out the claim that the bible is 'error-free word of God". In order for this to be true there would have to be one bible. There is not one bible. The bible is not one tome, it is a ragtag collection of ancient writings with multiple canon and translations. Whether you feel so or not translation is important. The Bible contains errors regardless of the fact that there are different canons. Everyone knows there's difference canons and there's really no good reason to bring it up here unless it has some impact on how a model of origins could be developed from "the Bible". So which translation differences prevent a model on origins from being developed?
Calling into question RTB's assertion that there is one errror-free version of the bible is very relevant in order to discount their claims. I didn't see them assert that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
All three of these cannot be error-free. One can be, or none can be. Which parts, specifically, are mutually exclusive? Did I claim anything about mutually exclusive. I stated all three cannot be error-free. In order for that to be true they would have to have the same text.
Whether or not a Bible canon contains a particular book that is unrelated to origins is irrelevant to a Biblical model on origins.
But Genesis does concern the Biblical model of Genesis and if they claim "the Bible" is error-free, then we must then determine what bible.
The Bible contains errors regardless of the fact that there are different canons. Everyone knows there's difference canons and there's really no good reason to bring it up here unless it has some impact on how a model of origins could be developed from "the Bible".
Of course there is. They claim the bible is error-free. In order to address that it is necessary to know what text they are claiming is "The Bible". According to the RTB model there are no errors. I agree with you that there are, no matter what version is used.
So which translation differences prevent a model on origins from being developed?
I do not feel there is a need to address that. If anyhting you are trying to build a strawman. RTB claims that the Bible is error-free are not even worthy of addressing if we do not know what the text is.
I didn't see them assert that.
Are you asserting that they would be fine with any text? The assertion of an error-free bible necessitates a particular version they believe is error free. Also it is necessary to know what they mean by "error-free". There are many levels of inerrantists. Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia I am amazed that even when we agree on a topic you have to be confrontational.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Did I claim anything about mutually exclusive. I stated all three cannot be error-free. In order for that to be true they would have to have the same text. I disagree. Whether it says that either god "moved upon" or god "hovered over" the face of the waters doesn't introduce an erroneous difference unless those things are mutually exclusive.
But Genesis does concern the Biblical model of Genesis and if they claim "the Bible" is error-free, then we must then determine what bible. If we're considering Genesis, and all canons contain Genesis, then it doesn't matter which canon you pick (unless some translation difference causes some mutual exclusivity).
They claim the bible is error-free. In order to address that it is necessary to know what text they are claiming is "The Bible". According to the RTB model there are no errors. I agree with you that there are, no matter what version is used. If there are errors no matter what version is used then we don't need to know what version they are using to say that it does contain errors.
The assertion of an error-free bible necessitates a particular version they believe is error free. It doesn't necessitate limiting it to one version.
Also it is necessary to know what they mean by "error-free". There are many levels of inerrantists. That being true; your claims that they have to be talking about one particular version, and that we have to know what it is, are rendered false. Perhaps they have some novel concept of "error free" that includes multiple canons of different translations. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024